Assessment of EoI: 212

Organization: PRO-BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATIONITSTS IN UGANDA (PROBICOU)



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 212 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: IS A FORESTED REGION OF HIGH BIODIVERSITY

Evidence B:The project will be implemented in Kidepo Critical Landscape. The proposed territory/landscape covers Karamoja region located in northeastern Uganda consisting of seven districts of Moroto, Kotido, Kaabong, Abim, Amudat, Nakapiripirit and Napaak. The region houses seven National Parks, more than 13 of 506 Central Forest Reserves, and 3 of 12 Wildlife Reserves in Uganda. The Kidepo Valley National Park forms part of the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot. In addition, the dry mountains of Karamoja (Napa, Morungole, Kadam, Timu and Moroto) — regional and global endemics have been listed as biodiversity hot spots in Uganda (NBSAP, 2015-2025). Species Range-Size Rarity is high to very high in the area. The area includes some KBA’s but is not part of Intact Forest Landscape.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: area has moderate irrecoverable carbon.

Evidence B:The area includes parts with Moderate Irrecoverable Carbon.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 1/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 1.5/5

Evidence A: Is Under IPLC but in Uganda there is no data of recognized IPLC territories.

Evidence B:Apart from the formal govervent structures such as District Local Government, Subcounty (Lower Local Government ) and local coucils, the indigenous groups (The Iik, Tepeth, and Karamojong Pastoralists) are also traditionally organized in community based structures, including traditional leaders with elders, opinion leaders, religious and cultural leaders. The region is dominated by the Karamojong pastoralists of north-eastern Uganda, numbering around 371,713 people. They comprise one of the most significant marginalized minorities in Uganda, isolated geographically, economically and politically. Indiginous People tend to be marginalized within general community Collaborative Resource Management (CRM) groups, or the resources or activities of interest to them are not included in the CRM programs (e.g. cultural use of forests, and specific resources).


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: Focus has been mainly on biodiversity not on cultural significance.

Evidence B:The Tepeth depend on forests for pasture, fruits, roots, honey, bush medicinal plants, fuel wood, building poles and fruits, and their strong social structure and traditional norms ensured sustainable utilisation of the forest until recently. The Iik are also Forest dependant people who traditionally utilised forests for hunting, gathering and grazing cattle. As they gradually abandoned cattle keeping and adopted agriculture, the forest became important as farm land, for as well as for bee keeping, hunting and gathering. Craft making is a key use of forest products. The Iik also use the specific trees in the forest as stores for their grain. The forests are also sources of water.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: Degradation is directly affecting IPLC leaving here.

Evidence B:Climate variability and change undermines the already limited resources and development in Karamoja through recurring droughts, flash floods and prolonged dry spells. The ongoing conversion of rangelands to croplands in Karamoja sub-region has contributed to the shortage of forage for the cattle. Uncontrolled fires, bush burning play an important role in woodland degradation. Eviction from homelands (Natural Forests) has limited the IP’s access to food, medicine, and shelter. In the case of Karamoja, high surface temperatures, deforestation and over extraction of ground water without sufficient measures for recharge are the underlying causes of water scarcity. The area is also chracterised by Pests and disease epidemics- and high prevalence of diseases in both humans and livestock. There is very limited forest loss between 2000-2019 in the area and medium high cumulative development pressure. No land deals in the area.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Uganda does not seem to promote IPLC conservation like other countries in the region, but there is limited scope for people to conserve their territories. There constitutional basis to be used and some biodiversity legislation.

Evidence B:CBD reports highlight some national IPLC support actions. While the Ugandan legal framework recognizes IPLC ownership of land and does not require land to be registered, it retains control over forests and other natural resources, while allowing for some degree of community forest and collaborative forest management. (RRI 2020). Legislation in Uganda includes provisions that are favourable for IPLC’s (e.g. the Constitution, The National Land Policy, 2013, The Land Act, 1998, The Uganda Wildlife Policy (2014) and the National Environment Management Act, 1998) however there is no evidence of their implementation provided.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Is there but not adequate….

Evidence B:13.45 MHa are recognized by the government as owned by IPLCs representing 67% of the country’s total land area. Given the nature of legal recognition in uganda this is the majority if not the totality of claims. (RRI 2015) There is no basis for assessing if there is government interest in implementing projects for collective land rights. However, there is a certain degree of willingness to establish projects aimed at forest conservation and protection of IPLC forest tenure rights. Decision making is centralized - so sub-national data is not necessary. (RRI 2020)


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: There hbas been very little donor funding into this area.

Evidence B:Because of their vulnerability and their limited technical capacity, there are minimal projects that have been implicated by the Indigenous people and local communities themselves, but there are two projects that have been implemented on strengthening capacity of Indigenous People in the context of REDD+.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: Very little funding available

Evidence B:Government of Uganda has secured funding to implement its Forest Investiment Prgram (FIP). This is a national level program. Although Karamoja is not its main area of focus, activities aimed at strengthening National structures will also go far to benefit Karamoja. The co-financing of this project is envisaged to be 10% of the total project costs through in-kind contributions. The Current Cofinancing Landscape shows 6 related projects for a total of US$ 401.4 M including a US$ 9M grant for Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity and Resilience of Communities in Uganda’s watersheds project. The two REDD+ related projectsmentioned in the EoI are also relevant.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 11/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 21/30

Average Total Score: 16/30



Performance of EoI 212 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The planned approach gives little attention to IPLC led conservation efforts.

Evidence B:The project builds on and strengthens the existing IPLC organizational structures and knowledge base and the strong network relationship of the organization with IPLC’s to enhance environmental conservation and restoration.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: NA/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: The mainly focus is on government instead of IPLCs. Government engagement. There are limited practical conservation strategies.

Evidence B:The project aims for community-based models and IPLC leadership roles as well as strong engagement of IPLC’s in policy processes. The organization is well placed to enhance dialogue and collaboration through its strong connection to both the IPLC network as well as relevant governmental agencies. The activities and expected results are fully alligned with the main objectives and prioritizes enhancing IPLC rights and governance of natural resources.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: To a limited extent yes….

Evidence B:The project addresses the land degradation and marginalization of IPLCs building on and strengthening IPLC’s capacities, inclusive engagement processes and concrete activities to improve both conservation and livelihoods.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Yes, but might not bring about required relief to the IPLC.

Evidence B:The size and range of planned activities seem realistic within the budget range. The organization has indicated that the proposed project budget for 5 years is USD 700,000


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: The region is under funded so there might be not enough co-financing.

Evidence B:The EoI only identifies on government initiated project and limited in-kind contributions.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: The targeted region is huge but not sure how those targets will be achieved.

Evidence B:The estimated total area under improved management is 563, 064 hactares


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The EoI dwells more on government engagement. little attention is being paid to IPLC

Evidence B:The EoI provides a clear list of cultural and livelihood benefits as a result of the project.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: To a limited extent yes….

Evidence B:The EoI describes a clear vision on long-term sustainability from landscape, economic and social perspectives.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: To a limited extent, yes.

Evidence B:The EoI clearly explaines the relevant policy elements of Uganda’s commitments under the NDC, the Bonn Challenge and the AFR100 Initiative as well as Uganda’s (NBSAP 2) 2015-2025 to which the project contributes.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Hopefuly this will improve on existing initiatives or work done previously on gender mainstreaming.

Evidence B:The EoI explains a comprehensive gender mainstreaming approach in the project.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 1/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: The approach is very consertive, relying mainly on government work.

Evidence B:The project has a strong focus on both strengthening IPLC’s own leadeship structures and cultural identity as well as strengthening their participation in wider decision-making bodies.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 12/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 36/40

Average Total Score: 24/40



Performance of EoI 212 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: NA/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 2/6

Evidence A: IPLC are mainly beneficiaries. Main focus is at higher level of governance.

Evidence B:The applicant is the Host Organisation for the Civil Society Coalition on Indiginous People in Uganda (CSCIPU) and includes participation of IPLC structures such as elders associations and kraal leaders. The team has a wide range of experience and familiarity with social issues associated with Forest Dependent, Indiginous peoples of Africa, women and forests. Some of the staff members are already members of International Forest Dependant Indigenous people’s frameworks such as; The Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating committee (IPACC), the Indigenous peoples centre for policy Research and Education (TEBTEBBA), International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests and Indigenous Information Network.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: Limited demonstration.

Evidence B:The organization has long standing experience and relevant qualifications related to IPLC conservation and is well-connected to both local, national, regional and global IPLC networks. The EoI lists two projects the organization worked on including IPLC conservation related issues and partners.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 1/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 2/5

Evidence A: Not convincing…..

Evidence B:Two IPLC partners are included and their roles described.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: NA/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 5/5

Evidence A: Would have been more ideal to see list of staff and their qualification and experience.

Evidence B:The organization has a strong, competent and experienced team of professionals drawing experience from a number of areas such as Forestry, Environment and Natural Resources Management, Agriculture, Sociology, Gender Studies, social sciences, community development, Natural Resource economics and has experience in working with large and strict donors such as GEF, UNDP, UNEP, and World bank projects.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: They have capacity….

Evidence B:The average Annual Budget of the Organisation is USD 600000 (US Dollars Six hundred Thousand). The largest annual budget of any project that the organisation is currently implementing is in range of US$100,000 to US$1 million per year. The organisation’s funding comes from at least five sources, with no one source providing more than 40%. The organisation regularly produces financial reports and statements, which it makes available to the board and management, and which are always complete and delivered on time. External audits are conducted on an annual basis, recommendations are implemented, and an annual financial report is published and made publicly available. One project over $200,000, is listed in the EoI.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: Taste of the pudding will be in the eating.

Evidence B:The members of staff have had series of training on implementation of GEF projects, Financial standards and reporting procedures, documenting and communicating results, generation of and dissemination of lessons learnt from the projects as well as development of Knowledge Materials. They have attended a number of courses including the Harmonised Approaches to Cash Transfer for UNDP and Sister Agencies.



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 8/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 24/30

Average Total Score: 16/30



Performance of EoI 212 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)